[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference
Yes, that's what I thought. I'll update the minutes to make it explicit. Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> To: "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "'Pete Wenzel'" <pete@seebeyond.com> Cc: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:30 AM Subject: RE: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference > It wasn't said explicitly because it was assumed. The intention started of > as allowing electronic voting in addition to normal voting, not to replace > normal votes. During the discussion it got refined to only allowing kavi > ballots, but not at the expense of normal voting! > > Martin. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:11 AM > > To: Pete Wenzel > > Cc: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference > > > > > > Pete, I think that there was an implied notion of allowing > > votes in meetings, but unless I missed it (entirely possible > > in that particular > > discussion) it wasn't said explicitly. If someone has a more > > accurate recollection then let me know. > > > > One solution would be to replace "route" with "electronic > > route" in the minutes, to make explicit what was implicit. > > > > Mark. > > > > ---- > > Mark Little, > > Chief Architect, Transactions, > > Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > > www.arjuna.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Wenzel" <pete@seebeyond.com> > To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com> > Cc: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:06 AM > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference > > > > > ... > > <1> Jeff (Mischinsky) objected to email ballots and proposals of > > motions > > > by email. Martin agreed. > > > > > <2> Eric then asked for clarification of exactly what the new motion > > > should be, to which Jeff responded that Kavi should be the only > > > route for voting within the TC. > > > > > > Pete (Wenzel?) seconded the motion. > > > > > > Eric asked if there was any further discussion or objections. > > > Hearing none, the motion was carried. > > > > Seems like something is slightly amiss here, unless my memory is > > failing. I agree with <1> above, but think <2> may not be correct. > > > > If the restated motion is correct as recorded, we would be unable to > > vote during meetings, and every little decision would be delayed for a > > week. My opinion is that at the chairs' discretion, a voice vote > > during a meeting may be deemed appropriate for some matters, while the > > Kavi route could be chosen for decisions that require further thought > > or additional participation. But definitely the intent was to > > disallow email voting. > > > > --Pete > > Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com> > > Senior Architect, SeeBeyond > > Standards & Product Strategy > > +1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific) > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]